In the latest chapter of a closely-watched fitness industry feud, a federal appeals court handed Megan Roup a decisive victory in her copyright battle with rival trainer Tracy Anderson, affirming the Anderson dance-cardio routines at issue are not protectable under federal copyright law. In a newly-issued memorandum, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in Roup’s favor, concluding that routines included in 19 Tracy Anderson workout DVDs are not protectable choreographic works.
The Background in Brief: Tracy Anderson filed suit against Roup in July 2022, alleging that the former TA trainer copied elements of her proprietary “TA Method,” a choreography-infused fitness program featured in Anderson’s “TA Works” DVDs, to launch rival platform The Sculpt Society (“TSS”). Anderson claimed the routines qualify as protectable “choreographic works” under the Copyright Act and that Roup’s similar dance-cardio sequences infringe those rights. In her defense, Roup argued that the TA Method is, by Anderson’s own description, a results-driven fitness methodology – and therefore, an unprotectable process or system.
In June 2024, the district court granted summary judgment in Roup’s favor on the copyright claim; the court previously dismissed Anderson’s Lanham Act and unfair competition claims.
The Bikram Blueprint & the Limits of Choreography
In its February 17 memorandum, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Roup and TSS. Relying on its earlier decisions in Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC and Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc., the court emphasized that copyright does not extend to systems or processes – even if they incorporate elements of dance. Here, Tracy Anderson’s routines, though registered and described as choreography, were marketed and designed to deliver physical results.
As the panel of judges put it, “Even if the [routines in the DVDs] could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography, it remains … ineligible for copyright protection” because “the design …. primarily reflects function, not expression.” To hold otherwise, the court warned, would grant monopoly rights over “functional physical sequences” and stretch copyright beyond its statutory limits.
Not at issue before the Ninth Circuit: Anderson’s breach of contract claim. At the district court level, Judge Philip Gutierrez allowed Anderson’s claim to proceed, finding that there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Roup violated the “Confidential Information” covenant in her trainer agreement. Counsel for Tracy Anderson, Stanley Panikowski at DLA Piper LLP, confirmed that “the parties resolved [the contract claim] pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement after the district court had ruled that the claim could proceed to trial.”
Panikowski further stated: “The Ninth Circuit’s narrow decision does not concern the vast majority of Tracy’s choreography. Instead, the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished decision only applies to the 19 DVDs at issue in the case, which were registered for copyright in 2014. Ms. Anderson has continued to advance and evolve her choreography since creating the routines in the DVDs at issue in this case and will continue to advocate for choreographers regardless of whether their works are performed on a stage, in a music video, or in a fitness studio.”
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The Ninth Circuit’s ruling sends a clear message to fitness entrepreneurs: branding a workout as proprietary, scientific, or even choreographed will not convert a functional exercise system into a protectable work of authorship. For an industry built on personality-driven empires and carefully curated “methods,” the decision makes clear how limited a role copyright can play in safeguarding competitive advantage.
With that in mind, parties like Anderson and Roup will likely have to rely on trademarks, trade secrets, and as this case illustrates, carefully drafted employment agreements, to protect their intellectual capital.
The case is Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC, et al. v. Megan Roup, et al., 2:22-cv-04735 (C.D. Cal.)
Share
